i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No . 04 -0 8- 00 30 1- CV IN THE M AT TER

OF A. R. T. Fr om the 289th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-JUV-02460B Honora ble Carmen Ke lsey , J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Catherine Stone, Justi ce Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Justi ce

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: November 19, 2008 AFF I RMED This is an appea l from a tria l court’s mo d i fi cation of a juvenile orde r of disposition. On
a pp e a l, A .R. T. argue s th e tr ial c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n b y

c omm itt inghim

to t he Te xas Y ou th Com mis sio n ( “ TY C” ). We a ff ir m. On Oc tob e r 1 9, 20 06 , A .R. T. , a min or , e nte re d a ple a of tr ue to o ne c ount o f t

he ft $1 ,5 00 to $20,000, a state ja il felony . The trial c ourt place d A.R.T. on probation for a per iod of 18 months and order ed him into the custody of the Chi ef Bexar Count y J uvenile Probation Off

icer for pur poses of
secur e plac ement. A.R.T. complete d his prog ram at the Cy ndi Taylor Krier Correc tional Treatment Center on J uly 27, 2007, and was rele ased into his mother’s c ustody and plac ed under

the Afte rca

re Prog ram super

vision. A.R.T., howe ver, was ref err ed to the J uvenile Probation Depa rtment on two04
- 08
- 00 30 1- CV

1 ... T h e r ec or d s h ows A. R. T . w as c h ar g ed as a n a du l t f or t h es e of

f en s es on Jan u ar y 2, 2008 a n d w as pl ac ed on d ef erred ad judicat i o n co m m uni t y s up ervi si o n f o r one year .

- 2- se pa rate oc c a sio ns duri ngDe c e mbe r 2 00 7 w he n h e c omm itt e d th e of fe ns e s o f b ur g lary

of a ve hic le
and po sse ssi on

of pr oh ibi te d k

nu c kle s. 1 On Marc h 5, 2008, the State fil ed a m o t i o n to modify dispositi on, alleg ing A .R.T. had violated two of the c onditions of his probation. Specifica lly , the State alleg ed A.R.T. had violate d his probation by

rema ining out past his cur fewand committing ne w cr iminal acts in violation of the law. A. R.T . a

pp e are d at th e he ari ng on the State ’s mot ion to m od if y dis po sit ion

and sti pu la te d to the State’s evide nce. H e then pled tr ue to both probation violations. The State e ncoura g ed the tria l court to commit A.R.T. to the TYC following A.R.T.’s plea of tr ue , c iti ngA. R.T .’ s r e fe rr a l hi sto ry sin c e 20 04 . T he Juve nil e P rob ati on De pa rtme nt a lso
rec ommended A.R.T.’s c ommitm ent to the TYC. The Pre dispositi on Report pre p ar ed b y the J uvenile P r o b a ti o nD e p artm e n t s tate d th a t A
. R. T . te s te d

p o s it iv e f

o r ma r ij u an a o nM ar c h 4 , 2 008 when he was re fer

red to t he De partment for his active juvenile w arr ant. Acc ording to the Predisposition R eport, A.R.T. is af fili at ed with t he tag g ing c rewof “Tokin Kr onic” a nd smokes marijuana at least onc e a w eek w ith a friend. T he Predisposition Report also stated that A. R . T. sto pp e d r e sid ingwith h is m oth e r a nd fa ile d to a llo w the Juve nil e Pr ob a tio n D e pa rtme nt t o a d e qu a te ly

s u p e r v is e h im f o ll o w in g h is r e le a s e f

r o m j a il in

D e c e mb e r

2 0 0 7 . T h e Pr e d is p o sition Report noted that A.R.T. wa s place d on “AWOL status” by the J uvenile Probation De partment for more than two months as a result of his conduc t. The Predisposition Report further indicated that the J uvenile Probation De partment ha s exhausted all service s on A.R.T. A.R.T. argued ag ainst commitment, emphasizi ng that he would not g et his medications for his depression, p s y ch o s i s, and sleep disturba nces if the court c ommitt ed him to the TYC. A.R.T.04
- 08
- 00 30 1- CV

- 3- encour ag ed the c ourt to continue him on probation and, if ne cessa ry , re q u i re h i m to wear

an elec tronic monitoring de vice. The juvenile court, howeve r, ag ree d with the rec ommendations of the State and the Juve nil e Pr ob a tio n D e pa rtme nt, and or de re d A.R .T .’ s c omm itm e nt t o th e TY C. T his appea l followed. A trial cour

t has broad discretion in deter mining the suitable disposition for a juve nile who has enga g ed in delinquent conduct. In re K.J .N. , 1 03 S.W. 3d

46 5, 46 5- 66 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 2003, no pet.). Ab s en t an abuse of discre tion by the trial cour

t, we will not disturb the court’s deter mination. Id. at 466. A c o u rta b u s e s i t s d i s c r e t i o n b y c o m m i t t i n g ana c tt h a ti s ar b i t r ar y, u n re as o n able, or without refe renc e to g uiding r ules and princ iples. Id. The Te x as F amily Code provides the guiding r

ules and pr in c ip le s f

o r ju v e n ile case s involving commitment outside the child’s home. Id. The F amily

Code permits a tri al co u rt t o commit a child to the TYC if: (1) it is in the child’s best intere st to be place d outside the home; (2) rea sonable eff orts have been taken to pre vent or eliminate the ne ed for the child’s remova l from home; and (3) while i n the hom e, the child cannot
rec eive the qua lity

of ca re a nd level of suppor t and supervision nee ded to meet the c onditions of probation. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 54.04(i) (V ernon Supp. 2008). A.R.T. argues that committing him to t he TYC wa s not the proper dispositi on beca

use a c on tin uatio n o f h is p ro batio n w a s a mor e a pp ro pr ia te dis po sit ion
. Th e re c or d, ho we ve r, su pp or ts the trial cour

t’s finding that comm i t m ent to the TYC was a suitable dispositi on for A.R.T. The evidenc e stipulated to by

the parties shows that A.R.T. was first refe rre d to the J uvenile Probation Depa rtment for g raf

fiti in J uly 2 0 0 4
. Although the char g e wa s ultim ately dismiss ed, A.R.T. wa s arr ested for

possession of marijuana and ref err ed to the Probation Depa rtment approximately

a y ear later. A .R.T. initi ally

rec eived a

defe rre d prosec ution contra ct for the pos session char g e, but A.R.T.04
- 08
- 00 30 1- CV

- 4- violated the ter

ms of his ag ree ment shortly there afte r. A.R.T. later pled true to t h e o ffense of possession of marijuana

and wa s place d on six months probation in March 2006. A.R.T. proce eded to violate the t erms of his probation by testing positive for

marijuana

and
coca ine in April 2006. The State f iled a motion to modify

dispositi on in response to A.R.T.’s pr ob a tio n v iol a tio n, bu t A .R. T. fa ile d to a pp e ar i n c ourt . A warr ant wa s issu e d for A. R.T .’ s arr e st and A.R.T. wa s ag ain ref

err ed to the Juvenile Probation Depar tment. A.R.T. pled true to violating the terms of his probation in Aug ust 2006, and had his pr obation extended for one y ear by the trial court. L ess than a month af ter the court’s continuation of A.R.T.’s probation, A.R.T. committ ed the underlying of

fense of theft $1,500 to $20,000. Despite rec eiving 18 months probation for his theft offe nse and spending part of his proba tionary period in Krie r and the After car e Prog ram, the r ecor d
s h o w s t h a tA
. R . T . p e r s i s t e d i ne n g a g i n g i n n e g a t i v e b e h a v i o r u p o n r e tu r n i n g t o h i s m o t h e r ’ s c u s t o dy. Not only did he re sume using dr ug s, A.R.T. left home, did not allow t h e J u v en i le Probation Depa rtment to proper ly supervise him, and committed new cr iminal acts (burg lary of a ve hicle and possession of prohibited knuckles) in violation of the law. We believe the rec ord amply confirms that less restric tive alternatives were not succe ssful in r e h a b il it a ti n g A
. R. T . A
. R. T . p e r s is te d in e n g a g in g in

n e g a ti v e b e h a v io r

w h il e o np r o bation notwithstanding the suppor t he re ceive d from the Juvenile Probation Depar tment. As a re sult, we
c ann ot s ay

the tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in

c omm itt ingA. R.T . to the TY C. A .R. T. ’s a pp e llate complaint is theref

ore ove rruled. The trial c ourt’s disposition order is aff irmed.
Catherine Stone, Justi ce